Does Consciousness Support Theism in Any Way?

[jgh7]

Sometimes I hear claims that the phenomena of consciousness proves religion in some way. It proves somehow that there's a soul, that we continue to stay conscious after we die, and that the spirit which encapsulates this consciousness is immortal.

I'm still not convinced that consciousness is any more than the byproduct of electricity in the brain. Once the brain dies and has zero activity, consciousness dies with it.

[Divine Insight]

I would only change one word in this. Instead of property, I would use the word product. Awareness is a product of complex electromagnetic behavior in the brain. The awareness is having the experience, not the electromagnetic behavior itself. All the the electromagnetic behavior does is produce the awareness.

But you have still eluded the ultimate question of just what it is that is having this awareness. Terms like "Produces awareness" are not meaningful if you haven't explained just what it is that has become aware. At this point all you seem to be saying is that certain electromagnetic patterns of activity themselves become aware because of their patterns of activity. But until you can actually offer a meaningful hypothesis for exactly how this could be accomplished you haven't really done much of anything than take a wild guess. A guess that is based on the unknowable assumption below to boot:

I think this contradicts with the previous quote you made. Energy as I understand is inanimate just as electromagnetic behavior is inanimate. Unless you're referring to an alternate non-scientific definition of energy?

But the assumption that energy and electromagnetism are themselves "inanimate" is the whole basis for you hypothesis.

Also, is it truly fair to speak of alternative "non-scientific" definitions of energy when in truth the original postulate that energy itself is "inanimate" is already nothing more than an unproven guess to begin with. There is nothing in science that has verified this to be the case using the scientific method of inquiry. It's merely an arbitrary premise. And that arbitrary premise can easily be wrong.

You need to be careful when accepting the premises of science as if they have somehow been 'scientifically confirmed' themselves. They haven't been. They are simply the starting assumptions of the scientific method. So they can hardly be used later as any sort of support of evidence for conclusions based upon them. That would be a circular argument. An argument that supports a conclusion that began as an unverified premise.

[Divine Insight]

Hi DI, I find this topic fascinating. You say that we know what we mean by "aware", but I'm not really sure that I do. Maybe I'm just slow

From dictionary.com I get the following which I don't think is helpful to me here:

No, a dictionary definition of a word is not going to help here at all. This isn't about how we define words, which as you point out is often quite circular and dependent on understanding the meaning of other words.

The question of being aware of your experiences is a question that only you can answer directly from your own subjective experience. In fact, this comes into play with the question of solipsism. How can you know objectively that you aren't the only person in the entire world who is actually aware of your experiences? Basically you can't know. You can only assume that others are also aware of having an experience. Of course this certainly seems like a rational assumption.

However, we could easily imagine that you are a living entity that has been connected up to some sort of computer simulation where everything you experience and everyone you meet is really nothing more than an inanimate simulation. In other words, we can actually imagine and define a situation where only you are having any true experience of awareness, where everyone else is just a computer animated simulation.

What good is a dictionary definition of awareness going to do you at that point?

~~~~~

Of course, as I say, in our real world it certainly seems rational to believe that everyone we meet is aware of their experience. But we can't even be certain of that. Consider this:

Let's imagine that awareness is the product of a brain as secularists imagine. What then if it's not the product of ALL brains? In other words, what if only some brains actually reach this state of actual awareness, whilst others are just inanimate thinking machines that haven't actually produced this "feedback loop" that produces actual awareness?

If that's the case then only SOME humans are actually aware of being alive, whilst other are actually ARE zombies! And we wouldn't even be able to tell which ones were truly aware and which ones are just automatons. You couldn't tell objectively.

Also, at what level does a brain truly create "awareness" Are animals "aware" of their existence? Most people are totally convinced that their pets are fully aware that they are living breathing animals and are having experiences. People who support animal rights are clearly very convinced that animals are aware of the experiences they are having.

How far down can we go? Are insects aware of being living breathing animals? How about worms? Bacteria? Plants?

Where does actual awareness begin?

If it begins in some sort of sophisticated nervous system or brain stem. Then exactly when does it begin? How far down the evolutionary ladder can we go before we can point to true awareness first emerging? What is required for that to occur? And once it has occurred wouldn't that be the END of the explanation? I mean, any additional levels of awareness from that point onward would simply be improvements on how much information the thing is actually becoming aware of. But the primal ability to actually be aware of anything at all has already been taken care of.

So we could point to that original primal configuration of brain stem activity as being the ultimate source of, and requirement for "awareness". And it would be that configuration that ultimately constitutes and explains the phenomenon. As I say, and further development would only be the addition of more complex things to be "aware" of, since the foundation primal event of becoming "aware" had already taken place.

This would necessarily be a secular or physical explanation for awareness, or what we ultimately then call "consciousness".

On the other hands, if "awareness" or "consciousness" is an innate property of the stuff of the universe (what we call energy), then everything is always aware on some level. The only thing that changes is the complexity of what is being experienced by the energy of the universe.

I don't think this is an open and shut case. I think both of these hypotheses have some merit, and I confess to actually leaning in the direction of the stuff of the universe ultimately having this ability (or property) innately. And the only thing that actually evolves are the complex things for this primal awareness to experience.

This is the basis of many pantheistic religions. They claim that we are all a part of this innate awareness, each of us being exposed to different things to experience. But we are ultimately all the same "awareness" in this primal sense.

~~~~~~~

Here are the REAL question:

Is awareness a property of individual configurations?

If so, then the secularists are right. A configuration is the thing that is aware of having an experience and so when that specific configuration ends that experience ends and so does the awareness that was aware of the experience.

We are our physical brains, and when the brain dies so do we.

Is awareness a property of the primordial substance of the universe?

In this scenario it's not the configuration that is aware of anything, but rather it's the substance that has undergone the configuration that is aware of this experience. Therefore when the configuration and its associated experiences cease, the awareness isn't affected because the awareness is innate to the substance of the universe, not its current configuration at any given time.

Then when another complex configuration arises the awareness of the substance of the universe begins to experience this new configuration. And this is what is referred to as "reincarnation" of awareness.

I'm not claiming to know which scenario is true. I'm merely trying to point out that they both have their own merits.

The tricky bit is how is the computer's awareness different from ours? I don't have an answer. Intuitively I think there must be something, but I can't put a finger on it so to speak.

This is a very interesting question in both realms.

If awareness can be created by electromagnetic configuration as the secularists believe, then clearly if we create a sufficient A.I. that intelligent machine should indeed be able to become aware.

However, interesting this doesn't change much with the alternative view that awareness is innate to the substance of the universe. If this latter is true then computers should indeed be aware because they too are the substance of this universe.

So ironically, we should be able to create conscious living man-made entities either way.

So under no circumstances ever treat a robot or a computer as though it's not ALIVE!

I even treat my cars as if they are alive.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 12 by Divine Insight]

Lot's of interesting points there DI. I hope computers aren't 'alive' as I work with them for a living and I've made lots of mistakes programming them. Some of them would be real mad at me for the infinite loops, seg faults, forcing them to chew up all their disk space space, and various other grievances

One of my wild and totally unsupported theories about awareness and consciousness is somewhat related to computer programming. There are certain problems in programming that can be solved rather elegantly by having a single process that 'forks' or copies itself to deal with incoming input, leaving the parent process 'unencumbered' and ready to deal with the next request. An example would be a web server. Google forking web server if you want more details. My crazy theory is that maybe we are all 'forks' of the master process. Another way to say that is that we are all actually 'god' experiencing a mortal life. If true, this would really support the whole 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' since we are all doing unto ourselves when doing unto others. This idea is probably not unique, but it's something I thought of one day and really made me wonder.

Anyway, I don't put much stock in this theory, but it's one of the things I ponder sometimes. I guess it is somewhat related to the whole 'we are all part of the same energy' in the universe.

[Justin108]

That we have a mind/brains, capable of great intelligence, is in my opinion proof we were designed and not a result of random (uncreated "magically" appearing) material exploding and then lying around for billions of years

This is a false dichotomy. This assumes the Big Bang is the only alternative to design. It is entirely possible for both design and the Big Bang to be false.

Furthermore, your assumption that complexity requires design is completely unjustified. Why does complexity indicate design?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 3 by sayak83]

I would also like to add to your suggestion Sayak:

These are things that I have been thinking about for many years, since my youth. I've been interested in computer programming and creating A.I. since before computers even became popular.

So I've considered what you have suggested quite deeply. And in doing so I have concluded the following:

First, I suggest that the algorithm that you have proposed will NEVER become conscious or sentient if performed by a digital computer that simply manipulates binary bits in parallel in a step-wise fashion as digital computers work using a CPU.

I suggest that the only possible way that any "magic" could actually occur would require an analog computer, or what today is referred to as a "Neural Network". In this configuration the possibility that some sort of "magical" feedback loop could actually emerge may potentially be plausible.

But even then, trying to explain why a feedback loop could actually have an experience and become "aware" of what's going on still seems pretty darn far-fetched.

I'm more inclined to embrace the theories that the innate ability to become 'aware' is more likely to be an innate property of "energy". (whatever that is)

But I confess, that it's impossible to guess at this point in time.

But still, it seems to me that even a feedback loop becoming "aware" seems pretty strange because there is nothing in physics to explain why that should be the case.

It's certainly far too unclear at this point in time to suggest that this is some sort of obvious solution to the problem. It's not obvious why this should work at all.

Could awareness just be a byproduct of intelligence?

It's one thing for a lizard to look at a warm rock in the sun and understand the effects of resting there.
It would be another thing for a lizard type animal that is surviving due to increases in brain power (over being faster or stronger) to look at a rock in the sun and understand that 'I' need to rest there for a while because 'I' need x,y and z.

Could awareness just be an animal recognizing not just that things have effects, but that these things have an effect on this creature that I am beginning to understand to be, well.... 'me'?

Not that I don't love me the idea of some cosmic connecting energy.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 1 by jgh7]

I personally don't believe we have an immortal soul inside of us and no I don't believe that "consciousneess" is proof we do. The question "does consciousness support theism." in other words: "Can the fact that humans (I presume you are speaking about humans) are conscious (as opposed to unconscious?) prove there is a God?" a bit garbled.

That we have a mind/brains, capable of great intelligence, is in my opinion proof we were designed and not a result of random (uncreated "magically" appearing) material exploding and then lying around for billions of years; that would stretch credulity just as the suggestion that the control center of a busy airport came about from an explosion of concrete and metal. In short I think that the support is not in our "consciousness" which is just a byproduct of our functioning brains but in the brain itself.


JW

A control center of a busy airport does not reproduce via sexual reproduction that results in mutations in the genome though? So comparing it with things that do seems nonsensical IMO.

I can't argue that Jehovah is not god because motorcycles don't have doors nor because bananas are 6" in color after all.

It's one thing to say that airport centers don't come about due to explosions of materials, but to then compare that to something that comes about by an entirely different mechanism with different materials is a mistake in logic IMO.

[OpenYourEyes]

Sometimes I hear claims that the phenomena of consciousness proves religion in some way. It proves somehow that there's a soul, that we continue to stay conscious after we die, and that the spirit which encapsulates this consciousness is immortal.

The answer to your question would depend on how someone views consciousness. The reason that I claim that consciousness supports religion is because it is not a byproduct of the brain but rather the two causally influence each other. More importantly, this is also scientifically validated. This then leads to the obvious question of where does consciousness from if not the brain, and some would posit that it came from a similar but greater nonphysical source; call it God, call it universal/higher consciousness or Brahman, etc.

As I mentioned earlier, there is mounting scientific evidence from neuroplasticity research that the mind influences the brain, and I'll post a link below for further reading. The reason these studies support mind/body dualism is because subjective or mental activity, like meditation, have been found to change brain structure. Now we know that brain structures, like neurons, are supposed to be responsible for virtually all of our body's function (cognition, emotion, behavior, etc) so to have these neurons change or to find new ones growing out of a reaction to SUBJECTIVE stimuli (focused awareness, thoughts, etc) puts a huge dent in 'materialism' and perhaps even 'biological determinism'. In other words, the 'mind' being nonphysical (thoughts, mental imagery, etc) in that it doesn't occupy space, has no mass, or matter (and a big hint as to why scientists have not been able to objectively/empirically verify it) can interact with and influence the brain.

Here's a short history to show where we came from and perhaps gives insight into where this can lead...

However, before 1998, it was widely accepted that neuronal connections in the adult brain were immutable; the neurons that populated a given brain area were thought to be fixed in accordance with whatever form and function the genetic code prescribed for that region (Begley, 2006). In addition, the conventional wisdom at the time--that no new neurons could be generated after injury or insult to the brain—was held with conviction on the part of leading neuroscientists.

However, upon discovery of the growth of new neural tissue, or neurogenesis, in the adult human hippocampus, a brain region responsible for memory (Eriksson et al., 1998), the dogma of the “hardwired brain� was formally repudiated.

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2933650/

Here are more sources:
1. Neuroplasticity, Psychosocial Genomics, and the Biopsychosocial Paradigm in the 21st Century (read the Neuroplasticity and Conclusion sections)
2. Psychotherapy Found to Produce Changes in Brain Functions Similar to Drugs
3. The study that #2 refers to is here

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 17:

The answer to your question would depend on how someone views consciousness. The reason that I claim that consciousness supports religion is because it is not a byproduct of the brain but rather the two causally influence each other. More importantly, this is also scientifically validated.

Then it shouldn't be too big a bother that you'd present this 'scientifically validated' data for analysis.

Have at 'er.

[OpenYourEyes]

From Post 17:

The answer to your question would depend on how someone views consciousness. The reason that I claim that consciousness supports religion is because it is not a byproduct of the brain but rather the two causally influence each other. More importantly, this is also scientifically validated.

Then it shouldn't be too big a bother that you'd present this 'scientifically validated' data for analysis.

Have at 'er.

I already posted my sources which explains some of the evidence. If the articles were too boring then I'll also include an 8 minute video of some of the evidence being presented. Click on the YOUTUBE link below if video doesn't play from this site.

[youtube][/youtube]

[Clownboat]

From Post 17:

The answer to your question would depend on how someone views consciousness. The reason that I claim that consciousness supports religion is because it is not a byproduct of the brain but rather the two causally influence each other. More importantly, this is also scientifically validated.

Then it shouldn't be too big a bother that you'd present this 'scientifically validated' data for analysis.

Have at 'er.

I already posted my sources which explains some of the evidence. If the articles were too boring then I'll also include an 8 minute video of some of the evidence being presented. Click on the YOUTUBE link below if video doesn't play from this site.

[youtube][/youtube]

What you don't do and need to, is to type out what you find convincing and to be evidence. Then post the links/videos to show where your info is coming from so we can verify what you say.

I started listening to the YouTube video, but you didn't explain why I should be listening to it.

What the video seems to be about is:
Neuroscientist Sara Lazar's amazing brain scans show meditation can actually change the size of key regions of our brain, improving our memory and making us more empathetic, compassionate, and resilient under stress.

What do you find this to be evidence for? If there is a part of the video that you think we need to listen to? Please provide a time stamp if so.

If you think I'm being ridiculous, then allow me to supply evidence for evolution. I wont say what that evidence is or where in the video it is, but here is a 45 minute video with evidence in it.